DELIP JERATH,RANCHI vs. ITO WD-2(3), RANCHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

M/S EKLAVYA ESTATE PVT.LTD.,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., H-95, Harmu Housing Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aabce 5815 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

26-12- 2024] wherein the Tribunal has held as follows: 6 M/s Eklavya Estate P Ltd. Vs DCIT "Even otherwise also, it is an admitted fact that profit of the assessee has been estimated by resorting to the provisions of section 145(3). It has been held in various decisions that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable

M/S RAM SWARUP RUNGTA & BROTHERS,RANCHI vs. DCIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

VAISNAVI AGRO,DEOGHAR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), DEOGHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A. No. 236 & 237/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Vaishnavi Agro...................................................................................................Appellant Bandha Town Area, P.O. B. Deoghar – 814 112. Jharkhand. [Pan: Aaefv 0289 J Income Tax Officer...................…………………….....................................................Respondent Ward No. Iii(1), Deoghar. Appearances By: Shri M.K. Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Malik, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am

26, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : February 28, 2018 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM Both these appeals are filed by the assessee are directed against the common order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, wherein penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was confirmed. 2. Before us, the assessee produced copy

M/S VAISNAVI AGRO,DEOGHAR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), DEOGHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A. No. 236 & 237/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Vaishnavi Agro...................................................................................................Appellant Bandha Town Area, P.O. B. Deoghar – 814 112. Jharkhand. [Pan: Aaefv 0289 J Income Tax Officer...................…………………….....................................................Respondent Ward No. Iii(1), Deoghar. Appearances By: Shri M.K. Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Malik, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am

26, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : February 28, 2018 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM Both these appeals are filed by the assessee are directed against the common order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, wherein penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was confirmed. 2. Before us, the assessee produced copy

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

section 142(1) of the Act, dated 20.06.2016, which were furnished by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings, the copy of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference: “Sub: Income Tax assessment in your case AY 2012-13 notice u/s 142(1) reg. Following details / explanations / clarifications may be furnished on or before

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 27.12.2017 and 14.02.2019 respectively, for AY 2011-12. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee in the Memorandum of Appeal in Form 36 are reproduced as under: “1. For that the proceedings being initiated u/s

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 27.12.2017 and 14.02.2019 respectively, for AY 2011-12. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee in the Memorandum of Appeal in Form 36 are reproduced as under: “1. For that the proceedings being initiated u/s

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI vs. SHRI SUMIT RAMSISARIA, RANCHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

section 41(1) are not attracted in the case under consideration. (iii) The AR stated that the appellant has incurred expenses on account of purchase of materials of Rs.4,10,78,735/- and on account of business expenses of Rs. 26,98,782/-. Thereafter, the AR stated that, the AO has accepted the claim on account of purchase of material